Did they truly look like modern Norwegians?

NO; KHAZAR PHENOTYPE RESEMBLED THE ONE DEPICTED IN THE IMAGE ATTACHED TO THIS POST —VIRTUALLY EQUIVALENT WITH ASHKENAZI PHENOTYPE.

I am 100% of pure r1b indo-european extract and my skin is blue, wtf happened along the way?

>Please kill yourself, you're the worst poster on this board

You too

>I1 Larpers
>R1bulls

Pick one, Bjorn

>lurp larp
*cringes*
white subhuman refrain from talking about us or else i'll make you my rapeslave just like how a BLACK man made your mother his rapeslave.
besides in an another thread i completely proved you wrong and you escaped like the lil cracker bitch you are

khazars were a turkic tribe, they were mongoloid

is that shoopped?

>khazars were a turkic tribe...

AND?

>... they were mongoloid[.]

IN A RACIAL CONTEXT, OR IN AN ETHNIC CONTEXT, THE TERM "MONGOLOID" DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING.

REGARDLESS, DO YOU HAVE A "POINT"?

>"Turkey has experienced major population movements. Population structure and genetic relatedness of samples from three regions of Turkey, using over 500,000 SNP genotypes, were compared together with Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) data. To obtain a more representative sampling from Central Asia, Kyrgyz samples (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) were genotyped and analysed. Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians; however, the Turkish genetic structure is unique. FRAPPE, STRUCTURE, and phylogenetic analyses support the PC analysis depending upon the number of parental ancestry components chosen. For example, supervised STRUCTURE (K= 3) illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 42-49), 40% European (95% CI, 36-44) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 13-16), whereas at K= 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 35-42), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 33-38), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 16-19) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 7-11). PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x/abstract

With "European" they mean Anatolian in this context.

Depends which culture it was. You got Celts as the best prototype for one group and eastern Slavs for the other.

Oops meant for the OP

okay let's wreck some white subhuman
By European they mean Southern Europeans such as Tuscans French, Italian etc. There were no "Anatolians". You dumbass white subhuman.
and that study is shit tier since it doesn't calculate the autosomal dna but rather genetic closeness to other peoples. and results were randomly taken by turkish hospitals. on top of that, a guy who examined aydın results found out that people from that place are 14-15% mongoloid on average.

The Nazis and anyone who uses the term "Aryan" to refer to blonde haired blue eyed people. Aryan is a synonym for PIE.

YOUR POST IS NONSENSICAL.

Your whole fucking existence is nonsensical you stupid gypsy motherfuck vampire weirdo shitskin.

>eastern Slavs for the other.
That's an interesting look at it, considering that it's actually West Slavs that resemble original Slavs the most.

Southern Europeans are just another proxy for the ENF populations who ancient Anatolians and [spoiler]modern Turks[/spoiler] derive most of their genes from. Turkmens are West Asian mongrels too so they're not helping your case much.

again. you're wrong, retard. no modern population can represent ancient anatolians. not even sardinians. on GEDmatch ancient anatolians are practically close to no one. closest pops are Sardinians (there's still a huge difference though), Jews and Christian Arabs. You are talking out of your ass without knowing anything about who ancient anatolians were. pretty great job.
>and [spoiler]modern Turks[/spoiler] derive most of their genes from
we derive our genes from West Asia. as can be seen here and here and pic related is the eurogenes k36 results of a random turk from an ancient greek place. it's metholodogy is similar to the study that you posted, except for the fact that it doesn't tell anything about you being what percent x you are.

Now i forbid you from talking about us in any kind of thread, whether positive or not. you're retarded.

They would have been more like Swedes in regards to meme history.
Norwegians and Danes have way too much Celtic to resemble Yamnaya peoples. The Swedes however have remained pure albeit with a few minor baltic influences, though the Haplo-groups and genetic clusters do not lie, Sweden is the true descendant of the Steppe horde.

In regards to what they actually looked like, probably something resembling West Slavs, they had the genes for blondism but it was not expressed, at all. It took the weaker genes of the people they mixed with for it to be expressed. As for blue eyes, that was a WHG trait, the Yamnaya did not have blue eyes, though they may have carried some of the genes, they most likely had a lighter brown. There are reconstructions of them, they do not look Nordic they look like Hungarians. But the Hungarians and Yamnayas couldn't be more different, it's really just coincidence they look alike, both are a 'European Steppe people'.
>Northern Europeans are genetically closest to the original Indo-Europeans.
Probably not, considering the Indo-Europeans didn't all share the same genes. They were themselves a mix of two peoples.
So perhaps some families had greater strains of Caucasian or North Eurasian, or some had a near perfect synthesis.
Scandinavians, particularly Swedes have the most 'synthesized' Indo-European DNA, however the Balts most closely resmeble them because they have a large amount of Yamnaya DNA but also a large amount of WHG DNA, which the Yamnaya had some of themselves since they were descended from Hunter Gatherer groups, not the WHG, but the WHG and the West Eurasians descended from the same people.

tl:dr
Sweden is the most Indo-European out of the Scandis.
The Balts are the closest things to Indo-Europeans.
Indo-Europeans looked like Russian, dark hair, dark eyes, 'european' features, deep socketed eyes, square brows, pronounced facial structure, strong nose.

>gedmatch
>eurogenes k36

autism

find legit sources t. other

>legit sources
there's not a legit source comparing us with ancient anatolians.
however, there's this study
bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-963
pros:
study calculates the asiatic admixture in us perfectly
cons:
it doesn't say a shit about autosomal dna.

>cons
it also uses 1 k*rd and some easterners.

they looked like west baltids and east nordids

>You are talking out of your ass without knowing anything about who ancient anatolians were
Anatolia experienced many waves of farmer migration from the East prior to Turkic expansion there, you not clustering with the oldest Anatolian samples doesn't prove that you're not descended from Anatolian farmers primarily.
>we derive our genes from West Asia
ENF came to Europe and Anatolia from West Asia. That doesn't prove your Türkicness, it just proves you're descended from a similar farmer population that got cucked by steppe people.

>The Balts are the closest things to Indo-Europeans
Balts are mongoloid N1C as for Yamnaya admixture it should be renamed Eastern Euro admixture, Indo-R1beans had a lot of it because they raped Eastern Euro women

>dark hair, dark eyes,
Only after they mixed with Georgian women

Balts have N1c because of an elite maritime Finnic clan. They're not more Mongoloid than Slavs in general are.

>Anatolia experienced many waves of farmer migration from the East prior to Turkic expansion there
*citation needed*
>you not clustering with the oldest Anatolian samples doesn't prove that you're not descended from Anatolian farmers primarily
Are you retarded, white sub human?
>You're Anatolian but you don't cluster with Anatolians but still you're Anatolian
are you literally brain dead?
are whites really sub humans as i was sying here?
>ENF came to Europe and Anatolia from West Asia
who cares?
>That doesn't prove your Türkicness
yes it does. retard. they also brought asiatic genes with them. and Anatolians were not similar to Iranians. and Turkmens are 20-40+% mongoloid.

and this you didn't explain why we're so similar to Turkmens , why we're very far away from Southern Europeans and why a Turkish pleb is related to Central Asians more than to Europeans/Greeks and why Turks are strangely more asian shifted than southern europeans

Probably not all of them but a considerable number of them had blond hair and blue eyes.

Turkmen are like 25% mongoloid, so if Turks are 15% then that's pretty close to being Turkic

the average is around 10-15% for us.
I wish Seljuks were 100% eurasian so that i'd not have to deal with retards here

>Northern Europeans are genetically closest to the original Indo-Europeans
Not at all. The closest to PIEs populations are, ironically, non-IE Udmurts and Bashkirs.

>expecting the wh*Tes to understand genetics
That's your first mistake

>eupedia
outdated af desu

Genetic drift can happen between populations isolated from one another for extended periods of time, the ancient Anatolian samples Turks have been compared to so far could just be a different subset of ENF farmers that arrived at an earlier date and experienced such drift.
>yes it does
No, it doesn't. The minor Central Asian input doesn't make you Turkic any more than the ancient steppe influence in Greeks doesn't make them Scythian.
>and Turkmens are 20-40+% mongoloid
They've mongrelized with West Asian farmer populations to a considerable degree, their steppe heritage is very diluted.
>and this you didn't explain why we're so similar to Turkmens
They mixed with West Asians.
>why we're very far away from Southern Europeans
West Asian influence, minor Central Asian influence and some Armenian / Arab genes (and whatever else Ottomans brought with them) here and there. Also you're not any more distant from them than you are from certain Southern European subgroups.
>why a Turkish pleb is related to Central Asians more than to Europeans/Greeks
Individual Turks don't change the big picture, I'm aware that some isolated groups in Eastern Turkey have more affinity to steppe populations.
>and why Turks are strangely more asian shifted than southern europeans
West Asian genes and the negligible steppe influence.

>Izmir more Turkic than central Anatolia
Did not expect that, I thought it would be the opposite

Turkmen tribes moved westward when they got btfo by Mongolians
besides the map is based on actual individual results. There are not enough central anatolian results for now.
PCA plots calculate different stuff. In your pca plot it calculates nothing about being asiatic. Hence Uzbeks are close to Indian pops. but in my pca plot they're not very close.
>They've mongrelized with West Asian farmer populations to a considerable degree, their steppe heritage is very diluted.
ok
>West Asian influence
brought by Turkmens.
>minor central asian influence
kek i love how you say "minor"
Central Asian is not a single ethnicity. When you compare a Kyrgyz to a Turk, we can asy that the influence is minor. But when you compare a Turkmen, we cannot say the influence is minor.
changing your minor central asian to significant east eurasian influence.
>Armenian Arab genes
*cringes*
>Also you're not any more distant from them than you are from certain Southern European subgroups.
didn't know you're also blind
>Individual Turks don't change the big picture, I'm aware that some isolated groups in Eastern Turkey have more affinity to steppe populations.
it's the opposite.
>West Asian genes and the negligible steppe influence.
according to the article it says we're 21.7% asian influenced.
you didn't even read the fucking article you white subhuman. do not try to argue with me or else you'll lose badly. and will remember this thread as how you lost your anal virginity.

Gr*ks are barely Indo-European

>West Asian genes and the negligible steppe influence.

also the article didn't calculate that. it only calculates Negroid, Asiatic and Caucasoid influence.

>arguing with the wh*Toid
Waste of time desu

Pic related, distance from a Bulgarian to a Turk is the same as the distance from a Turk to a Turkmen.
Also Turkic admixture =/= Mongoloid admixture
Turks were mixed Mongoloid/Caucasoid from the start.

>brought by Turkmens.
To some extent probably.
>kek i love how you say "minor"
Yes, comparable to IE influence in Greeks.
>But when you compare a Turkmen, we cannot say the influence is minor.
There is no way to tell how much of your West Asian blood is from the Turkic population set off from Central Asia and how much is from whatever populations they assimilated en route to Anatolia though, seeing as that West Asian farmer admixture encompasses a huge chunk of land (and your West Asian component is more similar to Iranians, for example).
>*cringes*
The Ottoman Empire was never an ethnostate by any means.
>didn't know you're also blind
No, I'm not. Look at your distance to South Italians for instance.
>it's the opposite.
Doubtful.
>according to the article it says we're 21.7% asian influenced.
West Asian farmer populations also count as Asian, though, and most of them were never Turkic.

>Turks were mixed Mongoloid/Caucasoid from the start
Not the West Asian farmer type of Caucasoid, though.

>West Asian farmer populations also count as Asian, though, and most of them were never Turkic.
:DDD
The article literally compares East Eurasian, West Eurasian and Negroid heritage. There are no west asians in the article.
>Doubtful.
see >No, I'm not. Look at your distance to South Italians for instance.
South Italians never lived in Anatolia. There's a shared ancestry between South Italians and Turks because both have middle eastern influence.
>The Ottoman Empire was never an ethnostate by any means.
Not true for regular Turks living in Anatolia. The only people the Turks saw in their villages were either Greeks or Armenians. Do you think it was a multiculti paradise?

More likely like Afghanis

No. Modern Afghans and Persians have Semitic admixture, hence the large hooked noses.

PIE most likely looked like somewhere between Nords and Slavs.

>There are no west asians in the article.
They fall under West Eurasians.
>see
Dodecad isn't very trustworthy, you can enter whatever bullshit you like about where you're from.
>There's a shared ancestry between South Italians and Turks because both have middle eastern influence.
Further attesting to the fact that Turkic influence in your gene pool is minimal.
>Not true for regular Turks living in Anatolia
Not for most of them no, but that's why I said minor influence.

>Modern Afghans and Persians have Semitic admixture
That's mostly true but there are some exceptions like the Kalash people, many of whom have blonde hair and blue eyes, and are probably the most pure Persians in the modern world.

>Kalash
>Persians

They're from Pakistan/East Afghanistan, and they're not pure Persians, they're pure Indo-Europeans.

Pic related, ancient Persians depicted themselves with hooked noses as well.

Semites have a much more pronounced hook to their nose.

Nords and Slavs have a lot of non IE admixture themselves from uralic and other pre IE European peoples.

>Uralic
>pre-Indo-European
"no"

>have a lot of non IE admixture
Corded Ware people mixed with EEF prior to their back migration to the steppe so modern Northern Europeans are pretty decent proxies for what steppe Indo-Europeans looked like

>cucked by weaker genetics
I am fairly certain they were all together dark eyed and dark haired from the start.
Blue eyes moved into Europe before the Hunter Gatherers of Asia even met each other. Before the 'Georgians' left the mountains and the West Asians left the tundras.
Indo-Europeans were at least an eighth mongoloids

>I am fairly certain they were all together dark eyed and dark haired from the start.
No they weren't, Indo-Europeans were fully EHG (blond hair from ANE, blue eyes from WHG) prior to mixing with Caucasian women.
>Indo-Europeans were at least an eighth mongoloids
No they weren't.

but didnt get their art from mesopotamia?
most dont

>Indo-Europeans were at least an eighth mongoloids
ANE weren't Mongoloid

blondism was not expressed in Indo-Europeans, none of the archaeological finds suggest they had apparent blondism.
I bet around 80% of Southern Europeans have the genes for blond hair and blue eyes. yet only 20% of them have blond hair and/or blue eyes.
>blue eyes from WHG
WHG and Indo-Europeans DID NOT mix until the Indo-Europeans were already an established people group. The Yamnaya were distinct from WHG, by the time the two mixed the Indo-Europeans were no longer a steppe culture, they became farmers. Also WHG were mostly displaced in Europe by the Neolithics.

>no they weren't
North West Eurasians are descended from the same people Asians are descended from.

>descend from an asian people
>not asian
They are the reason Native Americans and Europeans are equidistant to East Asians.

>blondism was not expressed in Indo-Europeans, none of the archaeological finds suggest they had apparent blondism.
Wrong.
>I bet around 80% of Southern Europeans have the genes for blond hair and blue eyes. yet only 20% of them have blond hair and/or blue eyes.
That's because they don't have a lot of steppe blood.
>WHG and Indo-Europeans DID NOT mix until the Indo-Europeans were already an established people group.
Yamna was a mix of EHG (which is essentially ANE + WHG) and CHG, the latter being entirely from the Caucasian women they mixed with. Khvalynsk is a more viable candidate for true PIE, and they were fully EHG.
>North West Eurasians are descended from the same people Asians are descended from.
That doesn't make ANE Mongoloid by any means.

>Everything that comes from Asia is Mongoloid

>Wrong.
dna-explained.com/2015/06/15/yamnaya-light-skinned-brown-eyed-ancestors/
eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
youtube.com/watch?v=Imj0_UhfMLs
You're an idiot.

>doesn't make them mongoloid
No one said they were mongoloids, I said they have some mongoloid DNA, and its marginal at best.
Find me one place where I said they were full blooded mongoloids.

Tocharian mummies had "nordic" features, so yes, probably. Although they probably looked a bit more chinky, like modern day russians.

>nordic features
>looked like Celts
refer to >eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml

Celts have substantial indo european blood, so of course Celts have nordic features also. Celts are a mix of indo european and near eastern farmer.

>he keeps posting about yamna
Just stop it you moron.

eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/european-blond-hair-may-have-originated.html

I never said ANE weren't brown eyed, it was the mix of ANE and WHG that brought about EHG and the blond and blue eyed look.
>I said they have some mongoloid DNA
Not Mongoloid DNA but DNA shared by certain Mongoloid populations.

...

...

...

I can find you pictures of syrians who look like that. Nevertheless ashkenazis are not descended from khazars, and most ashkenazis dont look like your pic at all

>Yamnaya
>not the Indo-Europeans
user.....
Looks like your source is confirming what I am saying.
They had the genes for blond hair, but they did not express it.

>but DNA shared by certain Mongoloid populations.
so mongoloid DNA?

They were late PIE. The theory all your links push is that the first Indo-Europeans were swarthy and brown eyed, but that's not true.
Not Mongoloid any more than it is Caucasoid.

REEEEEEEEEEE
NOOOOOOOOO!

doesnt look like they spread to norway at all you dumb snownigger

They we're definitely brown eyed since HG were blue eyed.
PIE we're not modern day Euros. Modern day Euros are mutts

>that's not true
I see the numerous sources and citations you have linked to substantiate this claim

>not mongoloid any more than it is Caucasoid
Well it certainly wasn't found among Caucasoids before mongoloids.

>They we're definitely brown eyed since HG were blue eyed.
See

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture
eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-khvalynsk-men.html

>Individual 10433, belonging to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, is almost a pure Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer, which is perhaps surprising, considering he was buried with copper artifacts.

>Well it certainly wasn't found among Caucasoids before mongoloids.
Bullshit.

they werent caucasian

what am I looking at here?
What claim of mine specifically are you disputing?

Jesus I hope this is satire

>Bullshit.
>these genes found in asia among asians but shared with a distant contingent of caucasians means the genes are really caucasian in origin
They were mongoloid genes.
No one is saying these were a group of rogue chinks. They are genes from a distant ancestor of some Europeans and some asians

>What claim of mine specifically are you disputing
Your claim that the first Indo-Europeans were swarthy and brown eyed, even though Yamna in light of all current evidence wasn't the earliest Indo-European culture but merely an offshoot of it.

>>these genes found in asia among asians but shared with a distant contingent of caucasians means the genes are really caucasian in origin
Not all Mongoloids have ANE, neither do all Caucasians. Pure ANE doesn't exist, therefore it can't be attributed purely to either Caucasians or Mongoloids.

We aren't discussing early Indo-Europeans though. We are discussing the Indo-Europeans whom Norwegians resemble. Genetically speaking Norwegians are related to the Yamnaya.
Nothing in your posted sources say early Indo-Europeans had phenotypical blue eyes/blond hair.

What exactly is wrong with the theory about Indo-Europeans being blond in regard genes and brown in expressed genes? Where did they even get their blue eyes from?
Blue eyes as a phenotype moved into Europe and remained there with WHG before Indo-Europeans moved onto the Steppe. They wouldn't have the chance to possess blue eyes because they didn't come into contact with blue eyed people until the first invasion.

No one has said ANE was mong, I stated they were the ones who shared genes with mongoloids, not that they were themselves asian.

See

>Nothing in your posted sources say early Indo-Europeans had phenotypical blue eyes/blond hair.
That particular study didn't go into it, but it is known that the origin of blond hair is probably ANE and that blue eyes stem from WHG. Original Indo-Europeans were a mix of both (EHG).

>Per Haak et al. (2015), in the modern populations of Eastern Europe the Yamnaya contribution range from 46.8–64.9% among Russians to 42.8% in Ukrainians. Finland has one the highest Yamnaya contribution in all of Europe (50.4–67.8%).[29]
I have this gut feeling that if 50-68% of the Finnish genome was from swarthy brown eyed people they wouldn't be 90% blue eyed.

t. other